Michele Bachmann on Health Care

Republican Representative (MN-6)

Bachmann healthcare stances compared to Sarah Palin

OnTheIssues' paperback book explores how Bachmann's healthcare stances differ from Palin's, and where they are similar.
We cite details from Bachmann's books and speeches, and Palin's, so you can compare them, side-by-side, on issues like these:

2012 is our one shot to get rid of ObamaCare

BACHMANN: When you look at Newt Gingrich, for 20 years, he's been advocating for the individual mandate. Or Mitt Romney, he's the only governor that put into place socialized medicine. If you look at Newt/Romney, they were for ObamaCare principles.

GINGRICH: I fought against ObamaCare at every step of the way.

ROMNEY: If I'm President, we're going to get rid of ObamaCare and return the responsibility and care of health care to the people in the states.

BACHMANN: You'd have to go back to 1993
when Newt first advocated for the individual mandate in healthcare. And Gov. Romney sent his teamw to the White House to meet with Obama to teach them how to spread the RomneyCare model across the nation. We have one shot to get rid of ObamaCare, that's
it. It is 2012. Do we honestly believe that two men who've just stood on this stage and defended RomneyCare when it was put in place in Massachusetts and the individual mandate when he proposed it in 1993, are they honestly going to get rid of it in 2012

Universal healthcare is euphemism for government takeover

So Barack Obama was elected to be our forty-fourth president. He didn't have my vote, but he had my prayers. So much of what he said on the campaign trail was nonsensical platitudes--just meaningless phrases, seemingly produced in a focus-group factory.
But he did make one very specific pledge that I took seriously; he called for universal health care--another euphemism for the government control of, and ultimate takeover of, our health-care system.

Source: Core of Conviction, by Michele Bachmann, p.153
, Nov 21, 2011

ObamaCare is bad policy; bad economics; and immoral

The American people have come to see that Obamacare isn't just bad healthcare policy and bad economics. It isn't just unconstitutional, In a deep way, in addition to all its other flaws, Obamacare is IMMORAL.

That is, Obamacare is an affront to the
animating principles of the American tradition of self-reliance and individualism. We might rely on one another for help, but there's something deeply wrong when a portion of the population--the productive portion--is subsidizing everyone else.

Source: Core of Conviction, by Michele Bachmann, p.179
, Nov 21, 2011

One shot at ObamaCare; after 2012, it metastasizes

If Republicans wish to take advantage of the opportunity to offer a sharp contrast to Obama, the GOP presidential nominee must not only be committed to ObamaCare's full repeal; in addition, the nominee will have to lead the repeal fight. Waiting in the
White House for Congress to pass the full repeal through the House and Senate will not get the job done. Too many special interests are invested in Obamacare; so with a passive presidential effort, socialized medicine that is both expensive and deficient
will prevail. Defeat of Obamacare will take active presidential heavy lifting--as well as conservative majorities in both chambers. I also underscore that we will only have one shot in
2012 to get this job done, because after that, Obamacare will have metastasized into state and local government such that we'll likely never get rid of it.

Insurance mandate profoundly violates Constitution

The insurance mandate speaks to a profound violation of every American's constitutional rights as well as to a basic misreading of the American people, misinterpreting what Americans really hope for in their lives. For one thing, they desire greater
personal choice, and health-care decisions are no exception. Furthermore, Americans instinctively understand that the enduring issue in health care is health itself, not health insurance. It's HEALTH that counts. Let me explain.

In the 21st century,
freedom-loving Americans are not looking for bureaucratic solutions--that is, solutions or pseudosolutions lingering from the mid-20th century.

So back in 2009, when the new administration was talking its bait-&-switch version of health-care "reform",
I understood that the health care that America really needed was a serious injection of market forces, followed by a booster shot of empowered freedom. We needed to be knowledgeable and active consumers surveying an open marketplace.

Repeal of ObamaCare starts with repealing the CLASS Act

ObamaCare is so flat-out unpopular, that even the Obama administration chose to reject part of ObamaCare last Friday, when they tried to throw out the CLASS Act, which is the long-term care function. Secretary Sebelius, who is the head of Health and
Human Services, reported that the government can't even afford that part and has to throw it out. And now the administration is arguing with itself. When even the Obama administration wants to repeal this bill, I think we're going to win this thing.
We're going to repeal it! And I will!

Explanatory note from Wikipedia.com:

The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (or CLASS Act) is a federal law, enacted as Title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (PPACA, the formal name for ObamaCare). The CLASS Act would have created a voluntary and public long-term care insurance option for employees, but in Oct. 2011 the Obama administration announced it was unworkable and would be dropped.

Don't let a federal political board make medical decisions

Q: Do you think that Americans are getting the most for their money in Medicare spending?

BACHMANN: We have a big problem today when it comes to Medicare, because we know that nine years from now, the Medicare hospital Part B Trust Fund is going to be
dead flat broke. So we've got to deal with this issue. I was in the White House with President Obama this summer. We asked him, "President Obama, what is your plan to save Medicare?" He said ObamaCare. I think that senior citizens across the country have
no idea that President Obama plans for Medicare to collapse, and instead everyone will be pushed into ObamaCare. The way that ObamaCare runs, there's a board called IPAB. It's made up of 15 political appointees. These 15 political appointees will make
all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans. I don't want 15 political appointees to make a health care decision for a beautiful, fragile, 85-year-old woman who should be making her own decision.

Decisions about STD vaccines should be made by parents

Q: In the last debate, you suggested that the HPV vaccine was linked to mental retardation and you said that it could be "potentially be a very dangerous drug." But the American Academy of Pediatrics has looked at it and says that the HPV vaccine has an
excellent safety record.

BACHMANN: First, I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement. Immediately after the debate, a mother came up to me and she was visibly shaken and heartbroken because of what her daughter had gone through.
I only related what her story was. But here's the real issue: Gov. Perry mandated a health care decision on all 12-year-old little girls in the state of Texas. And by that mandate, those girls had to have a shot for a sexually transmitted disease.
That is not appropriate to be a decision that a governor makes. It is appropriate that parents make that decision in consultation with their doctor. But Governor Perry made a decision where he gave parental rights to a big drug company.

End the idea that government should keep buying more stuff

Q: If you were president, would you repeal prescription drug benefits for seniors under Medicare?

BACHMANN: I think that the principle has to change, because for years, politicians have run on the idea that government is going
to buy people more stuff and that the federal government would be taking care of people's prescription drugs, their retirement, their health care, their housing, their food. We're the everybody else that's paying for the freight for all of this.
That's the principle that has to change, because we have to now recognize that, going forward, this isn't going to work anymore.
We have to be an ownership society, where individual responsibility, personal responsibility once again becomes the animating American principle. And we can't be ashamed of that.

Never force little girls to have HPV vaccinations

Q: [to Perry]: You signed an executive order requiring 11- and 12-year-old girls to get a vaccine to deal with a sexually transmitted disease that could lead to cervical cancer. Was that a mistake?

PERRY: It was. And indeed, if
I had it to do over again, I would have gone to the legislature. [We did give] moms and dads the opportunity for parental opt-out.

BACHMANN: To have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order
is just flat out wrong. That should never be done. It's a violation of a liberty interest. Little girls who have a negative reaction to this potentially dangerous drug don't get a mulligan. They don't get a do-over.

Q: [to Perry]:
Was what you signed into law a mandate?

PERRY: No, sir it wasn't. It was very clear. It had an opt-out. You may criticize me about the way that I went about it, but at the end of the day, I am always going to err on the side of life.

ObamaCare is unconstitutional; I'm committed to its repeal

PERRY: I will use an executive order to get rid of as much of Obamacare as I can on day one.

ROMNEY: If I'm president, on day one I'll grant a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states.

BACHMANN: With all due respect to the governors, I've read this
Obamacare health care bill, I've been fighting this fight the last couple of years. Waivers and executive orders won't cut it. If you could solve Obamacare with an executive order, any president could do it and any president could undo it. That's not how
it can be done. Plus, no state has the constitutional right to force a person as a condition of citizenship to buy a product or service against their will. It's unconstitutional, whether it's the state government or whether it's the federal government.
The only way to eradicate Obamacare is to pull it out by the root and branch to fully repeal it. It's the only way we're going to get rid of it. This is the election that's going to decide if we have socialized medicine in this country or not. This is it!

ObamaCare is killing jobs

Q: Which current federal regulations have been prohibitive or damaging in terms of your own small business?

A: Well, I think without a doubt, there's two that you look to. First of all are the new regulations that are just being put into place with
ObamaCare. As I go across the country and speak to small business people, men and women, they tell me ObamaCare is leading them to not create jobs. ObamaCare is killing jobs. We know that from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. But
I know it first-hand from speaking to people. We see it this summer. There are 47% of African-American youth that are currently without jobs, 36% of Hispanic youth. I'm a mom. I've raised five biological kids and
23 foster kids in my home. One thing I know is that kids need jobs. And ObamaCare is clearly leading to job-killing regulations, not job-creating regulations.

FactCheck: CBO never claimed ObamaCare was a job-killer

Bachmann said, "Obamacare is killing jobs. We know that from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. We see it this summer. There are 47% of African-American youth that are currently without jobs, 36% of Hispanic youth."

THE FACTS: ObamaCare has
long been labeled a job killer by Republicans. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) at no point said the law would result in job losses. Instead it made the more nuanced assertion that fewer people would choose to work:

"The legislation, on net,
will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount--roughly half a percent--primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," the CBO said in an analysis. That's not job-killing, that's workers choosing not to
work because of easier access to health care.

Regarding minority youth, there is no evidence that the health care law is responsible for their level of unemployment. In fact, the relevant provisions won't take effect until 2014.

I fought; when others ran, I fought

BACHMANN [to Pawlenty]: When you were governor in Minnesota, you praised the unconstitutional individual mandates and called for requiring all people in our state to purchase health insurance. During my time in the US Congress I have fought all of these
unconstitutional measures.

PAWLENTY: That's not the kinds of things she said when I was governor of the state of Minnesota. She says she led the effort against ObamaCare, we got ObamaCare. She led the effort against TARP, we got TARP. She said she's
got a titanium spine. It's not her spine we're worried about, it's her record of results.

BACHMANN: Thank you so much. I was at the tip of the spear fighting against the implementation of ObamaCare in the US Congress. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and
Barack Obama ran Congress, but I gave them a run for their money. I fought when others ran. I fought. And I led against increasing the deficit.

Government has no authority to force people to buy insurance

Q: [to Romney]: Where do you find mandating authority for health insurance [as RomneyCare does] in the Constitution?

ROMNEY: Are you familiar with the Massachusetts constitution? I am. And the MA constitution allows states [to mandate insurance].

Q: [to Bachmann]: Does that make any difference whether mandatory health insurance is being imposed by a state or by the federal government?

BACHMANN: No, I don't believe that it does. I think that the government is without authority to compel a citize
to purchase a product or a service against their will, because effectively when the federal government does that, what they're doing is they are saying to the individual, they are going to set the price of what that product is. If the federal government
can force American citizens or if a state can force their citizens to purchase health insurance, there is nothing that the state cannot do. This is clearly an unconstitutional action, whether it's done at the federal level or whether it's the state level

ObamaCare is the largest spending program in our history

Q: You all support balancing the budget! But what entitlements would you go after?

Johnson: Medicaid and Medicare and reforming Social Security.

Bachmann: Obamacare, the largest entitlement and spending program in our country's history.

Cain: I would focus on major entitlement reform. This would focus on programs similar to Social Security.

Santorum: And of course repeal Obamacare before it does even more damage to our economy and our freedom

Source: 2011 Republican primary debate on Twitter.com
, Jul 21, 2011

I will not rest until Obamacare is repealed

Q: As President, if you could enact any policy to fix the economy without congressional approval what would it be?

A: Repeal Obamacare. It's estimated to cost 800,000 jobs, is a small business killer, and unconstitutional. I will not rest until
Obamacare is repealed. You can take it to the bank. We need the government to get out of the way and increase incentives for competition in the private markets.

Source: 2011 Republican primary debate on Twitter.com
, Jul 21, 2011

First member of Congress to call for repeal of ObamaCare

Q: What three steps would you take to defund Obamacare and repeal it?

BACHMANN: I was the very first member of Congress to introduce the full-scale repeal of Obamacare. And I want to make a promise to everyone watching tonight: As president of the
US, I will not rest until I repeal Obamacare. It's a promise. Take it to the bank, cash the check. I'll make sure that that happens.

This is the symbol and the signature issue of President Obama during his entire tenure. And this is a job-killer. The
CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has said that Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs. What could the president be thinking by passing a bill like this, knowing full well it will kill 800,000 jobs?

Senior citizens get this more than any other segment of
our population, because they know in Obamacare, the president took away $500 billion, a half-trillion dollars out of Medicare, shifted it to Obamacare to pay for younger people, and it's senior citizens who have the most to lose in Obamacare.

FactCheck: pre-ObamaCare system was 49th, not best in world

Bachmann wrongly said this about the law: "unless we fully repeal Obamacare, a nation that currently enjoys the world's finest health care might be forced to rely on government-run coverage."

First, the law doesn't create a government-run system.
Instead, it builds on our current system and adds a lot of new business for private insurers. Second, some studies on the quality of care worldwide have not put the US at the top.
A 2010 Commonwealth Fund study ranked the US last among seven countries in health system performance. In other health outcome measures, the
US ranks 49th in life expectancy, according to the CIA World Factbook, and plenty of other countries have lower rates of infant mortality.

ObamaCare replaces finest system with government coverage

What did we buy [with $700B stimulus]? Instead of a leaner, smarter government, we bought a bureaucracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy, and which will put 16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing President Obama's health care bill.

Obamacare
mandates and penalties may even force many job creators to just stop offering health insurance altogether, unless of course yours is one of the more-than-222 privileged companies or unions that has already received a government waiver under Obamacare.
In the end, unless we fully repeal Obamacare, a nation that currently enjoys the world's finest health care might be forced to rely on government-run coverage. That could have a devastating impact on our national debt for even generations to come.

The president should repeal Obamacare and support free-market solutions, like medical malpractice reform and allowing all Americans to buy any healthcare policy they like anywhere in the United States.

Voted YES on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts.

Proponent's Arguments for voting Yes:

[Sen. DeMint, R-SC]: The Democrats have Medicare on a course of bankruptcy. Republicans are trying to save Medicare & make sure there are options for seniors in the future. Medicare will not be there 5 or 10 years from now. Doctors will not see Medicare patients at the rate [Congress will] pay.

[Sen. Ayotte, R-NH]: We have 3 choices when it comes to addressing rising health care costs in Medicare. We can do nothing & watch the program go bankrupt in 2024. We can go forward with the President's proposal to ration care through an unelected board of 15 bureaucrats. Or we can show real leadership & strengthen the program to make it solvent for current beneficiaries, and allow future beneficiaries to make choices.

Opponent's Arguments for voting No:

[Sen. Conrad, D-ND]: In the House Republican budget plan, the first thing they do is cut $4 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the wealthiest among us, they
give them an additional $1 trillion in tax reductions. To offset these massive new tax cuts, they have decided to shred the social safety net. They have decided to shred Medicare. They have decided to shred program after program so they can give more tax cuts to those who are the wealthiest among us.

[Sen. Merkley, D-TK]: The Republicans chose to end Medicare as we know it. The Republican plan reopens the doughnut hole. That is the hole into which seniors fall when, after they have some assistance with the first drugs they need, they get no assistance until they reach a catastrophic level. It is in that hole that seniors have had their finances devastated. We fixed it. Republicans want to unfix it and throw seniors back into the abyss. Then, instead of guaranteeing Medicare coverage for a fixed set of benefits for every senior--as Medicare does now--the Republican plan gives seniors a coupon and says: Good luck. Go buy your insurance. If the insurance goes up, too bad.

Voted YES on repealing the "Prevention and Public Health" slush fund.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to repeal provisions establishing and appropriating funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund (a Fund to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs). Rescinds any unobligated balanced appropriated to such Fund.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:[Rep. Pitts, R-PA]: Section 4002 of PPACA establishes a Prevention and Public Health Fund, which my bill, H.R. 1217, would repeal. The PPACA section authorizes the appropriation of and appropriates to the fund from the Treasury the following amounts:

$500 million for FY 2010

$750 million for FY11

$1 billion for FY12

$1.25 billion for FY13

$1.5 billion for FY14

and for FY15 and every fiscal year thereafter, $2 billion.

We have created a slush fund from which the Secretary of HHS can spend without any congressional oversight or approval. I would suggest to my colleagues that, if you wanted more funding to go towards smoking cessation or to any other program, the health care law should have contained an explicit authorization. By eliminating this fund, we are not cutting any specific program. This is about reclaiming our oversight role of how Federal tax dollars should be used.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill represents the Republicans' newest line of attack to disrupt, dismantle, and to ultimately destroy the Affordable Care Act. For many years, Republicans have joined with Democrats in supporting programs to prevent disease, to promote health and, in turn, to cut health care costs. But today, the House will vote to end funding for the first and only Federal program with dedicated, ongoing resources designed to make us a healthier Nation.

Reference: To repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund;
Bill H.1217
; vote number 11-HV264
on Apr 13, 2011

Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to provide for the regulation of tobacco products by the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Defines a tobacco product as any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption. Excludes from FDA authority the tobacco leaf and tobacco farms.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. HEATH SHULER (D, NC-11): Putting a dangerous, overworked FDA in charge of tobacco is a threat to public safety. Last year, the FDA commissioner testified that he had serious concerns that this bill could undermine the public health role of the FDA. And the FDA Science Board said the FDA's inability to keep up with scientific advancements means that Americans' lives will be at risk.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:
Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (D, CA-30): The bill before us, the Waxman-Platts bill, has been carefully crafted over more than a decade, in close consultation with the public health community. It's been endorsed by over 1,000 different public health, scientific, medical, faith, and community organizations.

Sen. HARRY REID (D, NV): Yesterday, 3,500 children who had never smoked before tried their first cigarette. For some, it will also be their last cigarette but certainly not all. If you think 3,500 is a scary number, how about 3.5 million. That is a pretty scary number. That is how many American high school kids smoke--3.5 million. Nearly all of them aren't old enough to buy cigarettes. It means we have as many boys and girls smoking as are participating in athletics in high schools. We have as many as are playing football, basketball, track and field, and baseball combined.

Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Reauthorizes State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) through FY2013 at increased levels.

Gives states the option to cover targeted low-income pregnant women

Phases out coverage for nonpregnant childless adults.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:

Rep. FRANK PALLONE (D, NJ-6): In the last Congress, we passed legislation that enjoyed bipartisan support as well as the support of the American people. Unfortunately, it did not enjoy the support of the President, who vetoed our bill twice, and went on to proclaim that uninsured children can simply go to the emergency room to have their medical needs met. As the Nation moves deeper into a recession and unemployment rates continue to rise, millions of Americans are joining the ranks of the uninsured, many of whom are children. We can't delay. We must enact this legislation now.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. ROY BLUNT (R, MI-7):
This bill doesn't require the States to meet any kind of threshold standard that would ensure that States were doing everything they could to find kids who needed insurance before they begin to spend money to find kids who may not have the same need. Under the bill several thousands of American families would be poor enough to qualify for SCHIP and have the government pay for their health care, but they'd be rich enough to still be required to pay the alternative minimum tax. The bill changes welfare participation laws by eliminating the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrants to lawfully reside in the country before they can participate in this program. In the final bill, we assume that 65% of the children receiving the benefit wouldn't get the benefit anymore. It seems to me this bill needs more work, would have benefited from a committee hearing. It doesn't prioritize poor kids to ensure that they get health care first.

I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments. Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong. This bill is objectionable, and I am vetoing it because:

It would harm beneficiaries by taking private health plan options away from them.

It would undermine the Medicare prescription drug program.

It is fiscally irresponsible, and it would imperil the long-term fiscal soundness of Medicare by using short-term budget gimmicks that do not solve the problem.

In addition, H.R. 6331 would delay important reforms like the Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies competitive bidding program. Changing policy in mid-stream is also confusing to beneficiaries who are receiving services from quality suppliers at lower prices. In order to slow the growth in Medicare spending, competition within the program should be expanded, not diminished.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Sen. PATTY MURRAY (D, WA): President Bush vetoed a bill that would make vital improvements to the program that has helped ensure that millions of seniors and the disabled can get the care they need. This bill puts an emphasis on preventive care that will help our seniors stay healthy, and it will help to keep costs down by enabling those patients to get care before they get seriously ill. This bill will improve coverage for low-income seniors who need expert help to afford basic care. It will help make sure our seniors get mental health care.

Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:

Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008: Requires group health plans to apply the same treatment limits on mental health or substance-related disorder benefits as they do for medical and surgical benefits (parity requirement).

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: Prohibits a group health plan from adjusting premium or contribution amounts for a group on the basis of genetic information.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. PALLONE. This is a comprehensive bill which will establish full mental health and addiction care parity. The Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 authorized for 5 years partial parity by mandating that the annual and lifetime dollar limit for mental health treatment under group health plans offering mental health coverage be no less than that for physical illnesses. This bill requires full parity and also protects against discrimination by diagnosis.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. DEAL of Georgia: I am a supporter of the concept of mental health parity, but this bill before us today is not the correct approach. This path will raise the price of health insurance, and would cause some to lose their health insurance benefits and some employers to terminate mental health benefits altogether.

The bill's focus is also overly broad. Our legislation should focus on serious biologically-based mental disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, not on jet lag and caffeine addiction, as this bill would include. There are no criteria for judicial review, required notice and comment, or congressional review of future decisions.

I would ask my colleagues to vote "no" today so that we can take up the Senate bill and avoid a possible stalemate in a House-Senate conference on an issue that should be signed into law this Congress.

Voted NO on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids.

OnTheIssues Explanation: This vote is a veto override of the SCHIP extension (State Children's Health Insurance Program). The bill passed the House 265-142 on 10/25/07, and was vetoed by Pres. Bush on 12/12/07.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: This Act would enroll all 6 million uninsured children who are eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under existing programs.

PRESIDENT'S VETO MESSAGE: Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP. [But this bill, even with changes, does not meet the requirements I outlined].

It would still shift SCHIP away from its original purpose by covering adults. It would still include coverage of many individuals with incomes higher than the median income. It would still result in government health care for approximately
2 million children who already have private health care coverage.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill protects health insurance coverage for some 6 million children who now depend on SCHIP. It provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. Together, this is a total of better than 10 million young Americans who, without this legislation, would not have health insurance.

The bill makes changes to accommodate the President's stated concerns.

It terminates the coverage of childless adults in 1 year.

It prohibits States from covering children in families with incomes above $51,000.

It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.

Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.

Allows State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), that require state legislation to meet additional requirements imposed by this Act, additional time to make required plan changes. Pres. Bush vetoed this bill on Dec. 12, 2007, as well as a version (HR976) from Feb. 2007.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President's veto message [from HR976]:

It terminates the coverage of childless adults.

It targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering families with incomes above $51,000.

It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. DEAL: This bill
[fails to] fix the previous legislation that has been vetoed:

On illegal immigration: Would the verification system prevent an illegal alien from fraudulently using another person's name to obtain SCHIP benefits? No.

On adults in SCHIP: Up to 10% of the enrollees in SCHIP will be adults, not children, in the next 5 years, and money for poor children shouldn't go to cover adults.

On crowd-out: The CBO still estimates there will be some 2 million people who will lose their private health insurance coverage and become enrolled in a government-run program.

Veto message from President Bush:

Like its predecessor, HR976, this bill does not put poor children first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a result, I cannot sign this legislation.

Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.

Would require negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices that may be charged to prescription drug plan sponsors for covered Medicare part D drugs.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This legislation is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits. The bipartisan bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to negotiate. This legislation will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers.

It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. HR4 does not preclude private plans from getting additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. HR4 does not establish a national formulary. HR4 does not require price controls. HR4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses.
HR4 does not require using the Department of Veterans Affairs' price schedule.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Does ideological purity trump sound public policy? It shouldn't, but, unfortunately, it appears that ideology would profoundly change the Medicare part D prescription drug program, a program that is working well, a program that has arrived on time and under budget. The changes are not being proposed because of any weakness or defect in the program, but because of ideological opposition to market-based prices. Since the inception of the part D program, America's seniors have had access to greater coverage at a lower cost than at any time under Medicare.

Under the guise of negotiation, this bill proposes to enact draconian price controls on pharmaceutical products. Competition has brought significant cost savings to the program. The current system trusts the marketplace, with some guidance, to be the most efficient arbiter of distribution.

Prohibit mandatory mental health screen for students.

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Rep. PAUL: This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardian. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

[A Congressional commission] recommends that universal or mandatory mental health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public.
However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as "ADD" or "hyperactive" and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes.

Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a Federally-funded mental health screener makes the recommendation.

Repeal any federal health care takeover.

Bachmann signed Club for Growth's "Repeal-It!" Pledge

The Club for Growth's "Repeal-It!" Pledge for incumbents states, "I hereby pledge to the people of my district/state to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government."

Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law.

Repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective as of its enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by such Act.

Repeals the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010, effective as of the Act's enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by the Act's health care provisions.

Remove all funding from the 2010 national healthcare law.

Bachmann co-sponsored Defund ObamaCare

Congressional Summary: Declares that no funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), and any amendments made by either such Act.

OnTheIssues Explanation:This bill proposes to defund ObamaCare, instead of repealing it. This bill uses Congress' "power of the purse" to undo the previously-passed law, while still leaving that law on the books. In contrast, H.R. 2 repeals ObamaCare rather than defunding it; and H.R. 4 attempts to undo ObamaCare one piece at a time.